Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

July 2011 factual dispute (Part III)

Cont'd from July 2011 factual dispute Part II...

• Okay I may have screwed up on the date that Sollecito was "confused and nervous", but it was an honest mistake since multiple articles based on AP reported, "Police officer Daniele Moscatelli told a court in Perugia, central Italy, that Raffaele Sollecito looked "quite confused and nervous" during the questioning in the hours that followed the murder."
• Rather than "widely described as controversial" as a compromise why not just say "described as controversial". That, unlikely "widely described", is substantiated by the sources. To say "the case is controversial" would be akin to saying "knox is beautiful" rather than "knox has been described as beautiful". Inappropriate.
• I'll ask again how the four "controversial" elements were selected. First of all, the cites should be thrown out except for Vogt which can be used as a cite for three of the four claims. As to what can be included in the questioned list how about "Italian justice system" based on this article? I can find many others. Brmull (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't currently see a need for a wholesale rejigging of the article, particularly when you want to make edits which on examination aren't supported by the sources you cite. I see no need to remove references from the article because you think one reference will do. It seems a bit late in the day to be rewriting things to minimise any suggestion of controversy. We had a very lengthy debate on that subject a few months back, and the current phrase is a compromise. It's hard to muster the energy to go through it all again. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd not include the Time and Guardian sources, or one of the leading books on this subject. We had other sources but pared it down so as not to clutter the lede with sources. The aspects were chosen because they are pretty obvious and supported by RSs. Regarding the "widely described as controversial" statement, as I've already explained that was the compromise position. If that is unacceptable, I would just state it as a fact seeing as even the most hardcore "guilters" accepted that the case was hugely controversial in the link to the previous discussion above.LedRush (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Described as controversial" is fact. "Widely described as controversial" is opinion. It's as simple as that. The way the aspects were chosen was arbitrary. I want to add more to the list that I think are "pretty obvious" and supported by RS's. As for the existing sources, the first one is a dead link. And you're telling me an interview with the sister of one of the editors active on this site is a RS for the lede? Come on. Brmull (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With your definitions of fact and opinion, we'd have to say that "Obama is described as African American" and "the sky has been described as blue". The aspects are not arbitrary, and perhaps you should assume good faith here. As for the sources, why don't you sift through all the other sources we discussed as well, or through the dozens of others out there and choose the ones you like. Regardless, the language is so uncontroversial that choosing your own sources should be easy. Not that we need to as we've done this all before.LedRush (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Eating yellow snow has been described as a bad idea. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference between "widely described as controversial" and the examples you gave is that the examples you gave are WP:FRINGE, whereas there are a lot of people on both sides who see the case as open and shut. Brmull (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know of any cases where RSs describe the trial as uncontroversial or not controversial? I know of several that call Obama of mixed parents or mixed race, and many that mention the sky is technically not blue.LedRush (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's my case. The current wording doesn't past muster with me, because of the subjective adverb "widely" as well as the arbitrary list of things that are supposedly questionable. But to label the case as a whole controversial because some RS casually opine that the case is controversial is not right. It needs to be neutral language and precise for an encyclopedia.

The case has received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. It has been widely described as controversial, with questions raised over the validity of the convictions,[1][dead link] coverage in the news media[2][page needed][3] and the conduct of the police investigation[4][5] and prosecutor.

This works:

The trials have received media coverage around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States,[1] and aspects of the case are controversial.[2]

We can go round and round, or we can shift to a different approach and maybe get this settled. Brmull (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no issue. Your proposals are contradicted by long discussions here and the sources. No one has identified a problem with the current language.LedRush (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And the aspects of the case are not chosen arbitrarily. These aspects are highly publicized and we have many sources discussing issues with those aspect of the case. If you think there are other aspects of the case which should be on the list in addition to those, and find sources which support your opinion, then we might have something to discuss.LedRush (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The current wording in the lead ("widely described as controversial, with questions raised...") doesn't belong where it is. There's a lot one could say in the lead to describe the trial; singling out English-language criticisms from the defense side brings up obvious undue weight problems. Better to not bring up such things in the lead. Townlake (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, the criticisms are not from the defense side, but from the media. The media reporting has been largely in the US, UK and Italy, and all three currently have been highly criticial of aspects of the trial. Seeing as we spend a large amount of the article talking about these aspects, and seeing as the case is notable because of the controversy, there is no where this can be other than the lede.LedRush (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is going to have to remain an unresolved factual dispute I guess. I'm not going to waste my time coming up with a list of dozens of elements of this case that have been questioned by the media, which will still inevitably be biased and incomplete. Brmull (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if it's technically a dispute until someone provides evidence to support their position.LedRush (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please specify what evidence you want because plenty has been provided. Brmull (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy Tag - Is there consensus to remove?

There is a discussion above concerning specific factual disputes. I don't want to discuss the validity of such disputes here. However, I would like to discuss, with simple statements of support or opposition, do you support the removal of the Accuracy Tag?

• Support - Fact tags can be placed on specific issues or on a specific section, if that section is highly problematic. The examples raised so far have generally not been supported by reliable sources, and the disputed claims are.LedRush (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - So far, no real case has been made (the user thinks they have) and they have stated above that it will have to remain an ongoing dispute (as they haven't gotten their way (my words)) in what appears to be a hijacking with a veiled threat that a tag must remain just because one user thinks so. No one has supported their claims so far and there are no egregious errors in the article.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I don't see any real case for it to be there. I think major edits to the article should be put on hold until after the appeal. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have identified five or more accuracy issues in the article. I always explain my changes on the talk page beforehand. If no objection then I make a change. When the change is reverted (it typically is) I discuss the issue on the talk page and try to find a solution. The dispute tag is appropriate until such issues are resolved. It does look like the controversy issue is going to arbitration. As for LedRush's comment, it is a lie that my changes have generally not been supported by RS; since I've been here it seems like that's your go-to line when you're tired of collaboration. As for Berean, you are the one I'm talking about when I say some editors just swoop in spoiling for a fight. And if that's failing to assume good-faith, well, look in the mirror buddy. As for CodyJoeBibby, I agree with you that big changes are problematic now, but we disagree as to what constitutes as major edit. I changed two statements last night, per discussion, and decided to make a good faith neutral copy edit while I was there. If people would prefer that I stick to the facts in this factual dispute I will do that. Brmull (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're accusations are unfounded. I do not see LedRush lying and where have I not assumed good faith? Making accusations without backing them up is uncivil.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with your edits is that 1) The sources don't support them, and 2) You seem to me at times to be rewording things to insinuate meanings by innuendo to get around the fact that the sources don't support what you want to say. That's pretty much how much of the article was written a few months ago, and I don't think it's acceptable. Let's say you ask me what i did on Monday night, and I say: "I hung out with John for the night. Me and John watched the game on TV, went to the pub for a couple of pints, and got a kebab." You want to write that as something like "Cody said that he had watched a game with John and gone for a pint. He did not mention whether Peter was with him or not." CodyJoeBibby (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than citing a hypothetical example could you cite a real one? In this accuracy dispute I have been identifying facts that are (1) not in the existing source, or (2) in the existing source but contradicted by other, what I feel to be more reliable sources. I get a quick revert, usually saying that the changes I want are not supported by the source, but perhaps you are not looking at the second source. I am very careful, especially in the last few days given all the acrimony, to make sure my changes are supported. Brmull (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest this conversation be continued in the thread above? I would like to keep this discussion on topic and not scare away other editors from commenting because they don't want to read walls of text.LedRush (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Brmull is currently blocked for edit-warring so the tag may be taken down. His claim that 3RR doesn't apply to tags is obviously false.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support removing the tag. Disputes about specific statements should tag the statement (or the section) rather than the whole article. Glrx (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I believe there is a consensus to remove the article tag, so I will remove it. Furthermore, in this edit, Brmull stated he would use a more specific tag (at least he would use section rather than article tags). Glrx (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment pending dispute resolution

This dispute centers on a statement in the lede of the MoMK article that I and some other editors don't believe is properly sourced or NPOV. The paragraph in question is:

The case has received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. It has been widely described as controversial, with questions raised over the validity of the convictions, coverage in the news media and the conduct of the police investigation and prosecutor.

The first sentence is unsourced, and the word "much" is subjective. However, the major problem is the second sentence. The word "It" suggests that the entirety of the case is controversial which is untrue. The phrase "widely described as controversial" exists in no source; it is a subjective assessment by editors based largely on U.S. media coverage. In my view it is WP:WEASEL, not least because the sentence goes on to list four "questionable" areas which just happen to be defence talking-points. It's a lawyerly way of saying, "Almost everyone thinks the defendants are being railroaded."

Other editors have made comments about the problematic nature of this paragraph. I would like to replace the original paragraph with the following sourced text:

The trials have received media coverage around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States, and aspects of the case are controversial.

I've not been able to work with the three who are reverting the article most of the time. I believe it's important to get this right because it is the lede in a highly-trafficked article and in a sense it sets the editorial standard for the whole page. I'm hoping for a range of views to facilitate the mediation/arbitration process. Thanks! Brmull (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually think that to be neutral the lede should say something more like:

The trials have received media coverage around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States,. Coverage of the case is polarized between the view that the prosecution and conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been unjust [add reference to Dempsey, Egan or other pro-defense source], and the view that the trials were conducted fairly [cite John Follain, Barbie Latza Nadeau or other non-defense source]. The conviction of Rudy Guede has not generated similar controversy.

I agree that the current lead appears to violate NPOV. Grebe39 (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We currently have an extremely well sourced and highly negotiated lede. The proposal ignores the controversial nature of case. Because I have shown about 15 articles which describe the case as controversial, I don't think we should have to have the qualifiers that the case is described as controversial. I think we should merely state that the case is controversial. Even the most pro-guilt editors long ago ceded that fact, and the current disruptive behavior does nothing to convince me that dozens of sources and editors here are wrong.LedRush (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For those who've come late, and to ease discussion on those 15 sources, could they be listed below please? If they each get their own bullet point, than we can discuss them one-at-a-time to see what we get. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied from above: "This discussion (and one below it) (archived discussion) have about 15 sources for calling the case controversial. This has been gone over so many times I can't believe we still need this conversation. Though we don't need to per WP policy, should we just take 3-5 sources and jam them after the word controversy in the lede? It looks ugly, but it seems the only way to stop this silly argument from cropping up again.

More copied from stuff on this very page: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=amanda+knox+controversial+trials&cp=33&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=0n&aqi=q-n1&aql=&oq=%22Amanda+Knox%22+controversial+trial&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4b0b76f839a314b5&biw=1024&bih=531

More from above in the endless conversations about things long ago proven beyond any doubt: "This one explicitly describes the trial as controversial, and it seems like a fairly reliable source. If we can find some more, then I can add them in."

LedRush (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone disagrees that US sources regard it (all of it) as controversial. But that is less true, even untrue elsewhere, where only specific aspects are regarded as questionable. --Red King (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That may have been true 9 months ago, but certainly not now. Italian and British newspapers have become more critical of the case, and the tabloids in those respective countries can be even more critical than US papers (probably because the US doesn't have those types of tabloids). Please see Oggi or The Sun for particularly scathing criticisms of the trial.LedRush (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And regardless, that doesn't really have direct bearing on the trial as "controversial". Even if everything was kosher in the investigation and the trial, the case has stirred much controversy, as reported in numerous RSs.LedRush (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

brmull is now posting on the anti-Knox hate site truejustice.org. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well you guys won't let me contribute here, so I've been posting on a lot of sites, including pro-Knox sites. Brmull (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A mediator is now available to hear arguments from the parties to this dispute. Brmull (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder that mediation is still on-going regarding the last paragraph of the lede and anyone is welcome to weigh in over at MedCab. The latest compromise which I put forward is:

The case has received international media coverage, particularly in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Media controversies include the appropriateness of Sollecito's and Knox's convictions, the conduct of the prosecutor and the police investigation, involvement in the case by politicians, and violations or alleged violations of Italian defamation laws, among other things.

Brmull (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not imply that your fellow editor is careless

• Here is the sentence I tagged: "Apart from the knife, there was no forensic evidence directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom in which Kercher was murdered." And here is the statement from Alex Wade on which this sentence is apparently based: "For just as indisputable as Kercher’s dead body, found with her throat cut in her bedroom, is the fact that there is not one iota of physical evidence placing Knox at the crime scene. Niente, nada, nihil."

As I said in my edit note at the time: Physical evidence is not equal to forensic evidence. Physical evidence + Biological evidence = Forensic evidence. Similarly bedroom is not the same as crime scene. The editor who added the cite made an assumption that Wade meant "bedroom". But everywhere else in his piece he uses the phrase "crime scene" to mean the cottage. Editors cannot make those kinds of assumptions to correct an erroneous source. Finally the word "directly" is not in the source and is unnecessary and confusing. Direct and forensic evidence are two different things.

• 2) Here is the other sentence I tagged: "The defence stated that, despite having put forward several different theories, the prosecution had produced no convincing evidence of a motive for murder."

As was suggested, I looked at the title of the BBC article: "Amanda Knox 'had no motive for Kercher murder'". It does not say "the prosecution had produced no convincing evidence of a motive for murder." As was suggested, I checked the first sentence of the article: "Amanda Knox did not have any motive for killing British student Meredith Kercher, her lawyer has told a court." It does not say "the prosecution had produced no convincing evidence of a motive for murder." As was suggested I searched the article for the word "evidence". The only relevant finding is this: "But Mr Dalla Vedova contended no evidence had been presented to show Miss Knox, Mr Sollecito and Guede had planned an attack on Miss Kercher." That is not the same as "the prosecution had produced no convincing evidence of a motive for murder."

Brmull (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Change to lead

I have to agree with Grebe39 above. We need to be specific in the lead about what the controversy is to accurately summarize the article. It's absurd that up until now the article hasn't mentioned that there is a group of people who consider Knox and Sollecito to be innocent. Vague mentions of controversy and saying the conviction was appealed doesn't get to the point that is the whole reason for most of the news coverage. I think it's clear that some editors on this article are so caught up in their own personal views that they do not get that Wikipedia needs to reflect the real world coverage and expert views while summarizing the facts. I think the lead could probably stand to include something directly stating that the forensic evidence is disputed by multiple sources, as that is what the thrust of coverage has been about.

As far as the actual sources I cited in the lead, feel free to add more and better examples. Certainly there's no end of cites to choose from discussing the news coverage and the two views of the verdicts. DreamGuy (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Think your version is okay, except "The coverage has been criticised as being largely tabloid in nature". This doesn't appear to be supported by the source which just mentions "the delight of the European tabloid press" . --FormerIP (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We have many, many specific citations to controversy, and many citations to what aspects are controversial. This reflects how the article is currently constituted.LedRush (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In the middle of October when Amanda and Raffaele are back home with their families, I wonder if some will still come here and argue that there was no controversy. BruceFisher (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably depends on October of which year they get home. Ravensfire (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously since I've been arguing this very point since the first time I read the article, I think the language of DreamGuy and FormerIP is a thousand times better. The fact that some people are so wedded to the previous wording to me is prima faciae evidence that it was not NPOV. Brmull (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In general I prefer Brmull's version, but I think it needs to spell out a bit more about the nature beyond "miscarriage of justice". At a minimum, it needs to mention the problems that have been raised about the investigation and the forensic work. I do like the mention of Guede as it highlights the extreme focus on two of the three defendants from early on. Ravensfire (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly there are countless versions that would satisfy me. What I cannot accept is editors who refuse to negotiate at all. If that continues to be the case I will be requesting the arbitration committee take a look at those editors. Brmull (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making veiled threats and accusations. If you'd like to bring up my conduct to any body, please do. Until you excercise more care in your edits and ideas and begin to work with an understanding that others have different ideas than you, you'll have a hard time on Wikipedia, especially on a contentious article like this one.LedRush (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe I am not following the discussion (and it looks like people are referring to old fights or something, whatever), but it looks like nobody here as any problem with my edit in general (except in specific, and even there the one part that was raised as problematic has been supported by more than one editor - there are lots of cites about the tabloid coverage complaints, they were in the article the whole time and the lead is supposed to summarize the article). So I do not understand the revert back to a version nobody seems to like. Instead of just generically saying it's been called controversial (weasel words at best, clearly it's controversial, or else nobody would even be talking about it) we need to say WHY so people reading the lead get that lots of people think 2 of the 3 defendants are innocent. Hell, the prosecutors this week even said they think Knox and Sollecito will be let free, and Wikipedia still seems to be reluctant to mention with any concrete language the entire reason this has been in the news for last several years. DreamGuy (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted again. Your proposal, to my knowledge, has not been listed here. You've had a couple of people find specific issues with it and a couple people generally in favor of the language. The old language was the result of much compromise and is clearly sourced. Of course, consensus can change. I'd just like to keep the old consensus intact before making the change. Would you mind putting your proposed text here to discuss it in detail?

On your reasoning, to me, the new language soft-sells the controversy and doesn't represent the views of the article as well as the current. I am surprised because, by your comments above, it seems like you think the opposite is true...is that right?LedRush (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it DreamGuy's edit including FormerIP's ce is not only an acceptable but also article improving edit. I think the original was ok but the recent change (before revertions) is a better choice to introduce the controversial to the lead.TMCk (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I too prefer the newer version, as more direct and succinct. Rothorpe (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)